My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP07697
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
7001-8000
>
WSP07697
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 2:28:29 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 2:32:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.10.B
Description
UCRBRIP - Riverine Fish Flow Investigations
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
7/1/2001
Author
CDOW
Title
Riverine Fish Flow Investigations 2001
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />DOLORES RIVER FISH SAMPLES <br /> <br />A Site on the Dolores River was sampled for the first time in 2000. A fairly equal <br /> <br />number of fish over and under 15 em were collected at the site. The most common fish over <br /> <br />15cm sampled was round tail chub at 55% (Table 6). Flannelmouth sucker was 16% and <br /> <br />bluehead sucker was only 2%. The most common non-native fish was channel catfish at 16%. <br /> <br />The most common fish under 15 em on the Dolores River was also the roundtail chub <br /> <br /> <br />(48%), followed by speckled dace (34%) (Table 6). Native fish were 87% of the small fish <br /> <br /> <br />sample. The most common nonnative fish <15 em was green sunfish. The Dolores is the only <br /> <br /> <br />site sample that contained channel catfish <15 cm. <br /> <br /> <br />A quick comparison between data from this study and Valdez (1992), data from 1990 <br /> <br /> <br />and 1991, shows fewer flannel mouth sucker and more roundtai( chub now. The data <br /> <br /> <br />extracted from Valdez (1992) in Table 6 is not sorted by size groups, but an effort will be <br /> <br /> <br />made to provide a more direct comparison between these earlier and current collections in the <br /> <br />final report. <br /> <br />Lenf!1h Frequencv (YamTJa. Colorado and D%res Rivers) <br /> <br /> <br />Length frequency histograms for each station sampled in 1998 and 1999 are available <br /> <br /> <br />in last years progress report (Anderson and Stewart 2000). Refer to the 2000 report to <br /> <br /> <br />compare prior years to this year's data given in the Appendix. The length frequency <br /> <br /> <br />histograms for bluehead sucker were very similar between years (1998, 1999 and 2000) at the <br /> <br /> <br />Sevens and Duffy sites on the Yampa River. As was observed in earlier years, bluehead <br /> <br /> <br />sucker under 34 em were rare at Duffy in 2000 (Figure AI), but smaller bluehead down to 28 <br /> <br /> <br />cm were common at both Sevens (Figure AZ) and Lily Park (Figure A3). All bluehead on <br /> <br /> <br />the Dolores River were less than 28 em (Figure A4). On the Colorado River the size spread of <br /> <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.